18 September 2014

From 2006 to 2012, PyroManiacs turned out almost-daily updates from the Post-Evangelical wasteland -- usually to the fear and loathing of more-polite and more-irenic bloggers and readers. The results lurk in the archives of this blog in spite of the hope of many that Google will "accidentally" swallow these words and pictures whole.This feature enters the murky depths of the archives to fish out the classic hits from the golden age of internet drubbings.The following excerpt was written by Phil back in July 2011. Phil warned about modern ecumenical manifestos and their attacks on historic boundaries of faith.

As usual, the comments are closed.

Why are front-row evangelical leaders so enthralled with drafting formal
statements and grandiose-sounding declarations? Virtually every year
since the release of the first "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" statement in 1994, some group or another (usually consisting of self-appointed "evangelical" strategists and Christianity Today
contributing editors) gets together to repudiate evangelical principles
and discuss post-evangelical strategies—while pretentiously laying
claim to leadership in the amorphous evangelical movement.

In the end, with great fanfare, they invariably issue "a historic
manifesto." The profound historic significance of their work is
typically declared by the drafters themselves in the lead sentence of
all their press releases.

One can't help noticing the common thread in this growing quiltwork of
documents: virtually all of them strongly promote an ecumenical agenda.
And the urgency of the ecumenical appeal is inversely proportional to
the level of enthusiasm for whatever few shreds of evangelical
conviction (if any) are expressed therein. If I read the trend
correctly, the ecumenical agenda being pushed in these documents is
growing more brazen and more demanding with each new document.

For example, "Evangelicals and Catholics Together II" (1997) included this statement, carefully crafted to sound as if it were full of evangelical conviction: "In
justification, God, on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone,
declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven
friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so." But, of course,
the statement simultaneously solicited signatures from Catholic priests
and others who formally disavow the principle of sola fide. So
notice: that sentence (the best in the whole statement) purposely
omitted any mention of imputed righteousness and gave just enough
wiggle-room to permit, say, a Jesuit theologian to put his own spin on
the words and sign. It was a subtle approach to undermining the central
evangelical distinctive.

Twelve years later, ECT VII (titled "Do Whatever He Tells You: The
Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Faith and Life") took a much less
subtle approach. That document repeatedly scolds Protestants for their
"neglect of Mary" and the supposed lack of evangelical reflection on
Marian themes in their soteriology. The document goes on to make this
promise: "We [evangelicals and Catholics] will seek together the mind of Christ about Mary." Then it states: "Evangelicals need to consider whether more reflection on Mary would strengthen their relationship with Jesus Christ."

Now, does anyone truly believe these ecumenical diatribes are
strengthening evangelical conviction? Isn't the real point rather to
undermine the very truths that make evangelical doctrine distinctive, so
that (quietly setting all such things aside) we can join hands with the
Vatican in the name of brotherhood and unity?

No one who understands what historic evangelicalism is could
possibly think that type of "unity" represents anything other than the
wholesale rejection of everything that truly differentiates evangelicals
from Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Christians, and the
cults.

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what these statements are aiming for. Sadly, the evangelical movement
is being commandeered by people who do indeed reject evangelical
doctrinal distinctives and would like to see a brand of evangelicalism
that can easily syncretize almost anything from Roman Catholic mysticism
to postmodernized versions of Socinianism.

The Rules

PREMISE: DO NOT comment at all if you think the "right way" to handle Christian disagreement is to make an appointment and chat over coffee first. The vortex of irony you will create by commenting will sap the hair-care products off your stylish bed-head, and we do not want to be responsible for that.

Remember that you are our guests. We will, at our discretion, delete comments that we find off-topic, derailing, un-civil, slanderous, trollish or troll-feeding, petulant, pestiferous, and/or otherwise obnoxious and non-constructive. If we warn you, stop it. After no more than three warnings, you will find yourself banned, and all your future comments will be immediately deleted.

See an error in the post? How clever of you! Email the author. If you comment a correction, expect the comment to disappear with the error.

If you are confused about how the specifics of these principles play out in practical terms, you'll find a longer list of rules HERE.

Followers

Stats Attack!

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally, we agree. But not always.